De La Torre v. Bank Of America et al

Filing 6

ORDER granting 4 Motion to Dismiss without prejudice. Should Plaintiff elect to proceed with this case, she shall file an amended complaint no later than March 15, 2010. Signed by Judge Dana M. Sabraw on 2/4/10. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(lao)(mam).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Pending before the Court is Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (Doc. 4.) The matter is suitable for submission without oral argument, pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1. Under Local Rule 7.1(f), failure to file a timely written opposition "may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion or other request for ruling by the court." Civ. L. R. 7.1(f)(3)(c). Failure to follow a district court's local rule is a proper ground for dismissal. Ghazali v. Moran, 46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (citing United States v. Warren, 601 F.2d 471, 474 (9th Cir. 1979). "Although we construe pleadings liberally in their favor, pro se litigants are bound by the rules of procedure in federal court." Ghazali, 46 F.3d at 54. Plaintiff failed to file an opposition to the motion, and the time for doing so has expired. Accordingly, Plaintiffs' complaint is dismissed without prejudice. BANK OF AMERICA, et al., Defendants. vs. LILIANA DE LA TORRE, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 09cv2863 DMS (WVG) ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS [Doc. 4] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA -1- 09cv2863 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Should Plaintiff elect to proceed with this case, she shall file an amended complaint no later than March 15, 2010. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: February 4, 2010 HON. DANA M. SABRAW United States District Judge -2- 09cv2863

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?